NCEA 3: Is it worth bothering with at all?

The article entitled ‘Year 13 NCEA pass rate OK’ appeared to be littered with excuses and ‘reasons’. We were in for apologetics with the opening:
 “Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand president Patrick Walsh said the level-three rate was no cause for concern."
So here is the breakdown:
  • "With the downturn in the economy, we've got a large number of students who, traditionally, would not have been there as they may not be as academically able, so they would've left for apprenticeships or work, but they can't, so they're staying on," – Read: “they shouldn’t be on the course anyway cos they were bound to fail."
  • "There was also a "significant jump" between levels two and three, he said, so some pupils struggled to attain level three" – Read: "we have to accept all comers, even those that we think are just wasting time and resources."
  • "The figure also included special needs and international pupils who did not study NCEA, as well as those seeking mixed-level NCEA credits." – Read: "We’re just lumping the figures all together and it seems to be muddying the waters."
  • "Many pupils were focused on the more practical unit or achievement standards and national certificates or were involved in the Government's Youth Guarantee trades scheme." – Read: Actually, I don’t know what this means, were they or were they not sitting Level 3?
  • "We are and should always be working on improving level three [achievement], but it's level two that is the minimum qualification students should have in order to be prepared for the world, work and further education." – Read: "Level three is just there, but it doesn’t really matter... it is of no consequence in the REAL world."
  • "It's level three. It's not easy, and it's not designed to be, as it is a challenge," he said. – Well good, it should be, shouldn’t it?

No comments: